D&D 5E Why FR Is "Hated"

[pemerton]

Are you speaking about AD&D or OD&D here? Because, AD&D doesn't agree with you. Heck, the Appendix in the AD&D PHB outlines the outer planes and tells you that there are lots and lots of gods.

Now, is it easy to do? Maybe. I don't know. But, the point is, D&D has NEVER been presented that way.

I'm speaking to pre-2nd ed D&D ie OD&D, Moldvay Basic, AD&D (and presumably Holmes Basic as well, but I don't know it except by reptuation).

And what I'm saying is that - regardless of what Appendix IV of the PHB says - it is trivially easy to approach the game in broadly monotheistic terms, because the clerics and paladins are straight from some pulpy idealisation of the Knights Templar and their ilk.

Whereas, as soon as you try to actually implement Appendix IV, you get the problem that clerics of the gods of the Happy Hunting Grounds - who should, presumably, be shamanistic types like the 4e primal Shaman - look like they all stepped out of the pages of some mediaeval romance, with their heavy armour and heavy weapons and healing touch and the like.

This was a very frequent issue of discussion in Dragon magazine. Gygax tackled it, to some extent, by giving GH clerics special abilities and restrictions that reflected their gods (and he has a Dragon editorial in no. 92 about this). But it was 2nd ed that actually tried to provide a systematic solution, through the idea of specialty priests with sphere-based spell access.

Since 2nd ed, the only version of D&D that has really reverted to the earlier way of presenting clerics and paladins has been 4e (which even went so far as to make druids, shamans etc not servants of the divinity at all.

the idea that D&D is monotheistic because clerics and paladins

I'm not asserting that D&D is (or was) monotheistic. I'm asserting that the pre-2nd ed presentation of the divine classes makes it easy to play a game where all the clerics and paladins are templar/round table types (except for the evil high priests, anti-clerics and the like, who are members of dark cults that serve demons and other evil spirits), and will actively get in the way if you want to actually implement Appendix IV (with priests of Poseidon and Zeus and Odin and Baldur and Freya and etc).

And Moldvay Basic doesn't even have Appendix IV. As I said, one of the first PCs I GMed was a cleric, and I don't remember any details of how we handled religion, but as best I recall the general details, he was just a servant of the divinity. He certainly didn't look like a priest serving a member of one of the classic pantheons.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Even with 2E the PHB explicitly calls out Christian men and organizations as examples of clerics and paladins. For clerics it references the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers. For paladins it brings up Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad.

 

[Lanefan]

Even with 2E the PHB explicitly calls out Christian men and organizations as examples of clerics and paladins. For clerics it references the Teutonic Knights, the Knights Templar, and Hospitalers. For paladins it brings up Roland and the 12 Peers of Charlemagne, Sir Lancelot, Sir Gawain, and Sir Galahad.

Which makes sense in and of itself, given that they're trying to give concrete-ish examples of what they have in mind and those would be the most commonly known by their European/American audience.

The game just assumes that trope applies to many different deities in many different cultures and races. It's an assumption that really doesn't stand up under any scrutiny at all, but it makes the game playable (by keeping the Cleric class consistent with itself) and interesting, so... ::shrug::

Paladins are a different animal (and what else is new?), in that they really were designed to mimic crusader knights and not much else; and trying to apply that to different cultures/races gives decidedly mixed results.

Lanefan

 

[Sadras]

In the monotheistic conception, anti-clerics and evil high priests don't get their powers from god. They are sorcerers who get power from dark spirits (as is alluded to in Tolkien - sorcerers who wield power conferred by Sauron or Melkor).

and

ICE's Middle Earth RPG, which has a class list fairly similar to D&D's, uses more-or-less this set-up in its incorporation of clerics into its version of Middle Earth.

Pemerton you keep bringing up Middle Earth like it is some kind of established D&D setting to give credence to monotheism in the history of early D&D, yet you ignore ALL the established official D&D settings including Greyhawk and Arneson's Blackmoor which are and were polytheistic.

You keep bringing up paladins as monotheistic due to the templar knights etc, but ignore the many D&D monsters which are derived from a polytheistic mythology.

And even when discussing classes you ignore the Druid class which is undoubtedly rooted in pagan history and mythology.

But that is the word used in the book. It's not necessarily the word used by the people of the gameworld.

We are not discussing fictional people of the game world and we are not discussing the players playing the game. We are discussing the word utilised in the rulebook which states 'a' god or goddess not 'the' god or goddess.
And again the concept of a god (presumably referring to male in that context) and goddess (female) originate from mythology which again is another polytheistic indicator.

It leaves open that, in my campaign, when you choose "a" god for your cleric you can only choose the god that exists in that world.

Sure, but what does how you ran your gameworld have to do with polytheism within the history of D&D.

You seem to be dismissing/ignoring all polytheistic indicators within the game (literature, settings, monsters, the actual rulebook) to refute that polytheism was implied even within early D&D with the core of your argument relying on LotR philosophy and your own table's campaign world.

 

[billd91]

You keep bringing up paladins as monotheistic due to the templar knights etc, but ignore the many D&D monsters which are derived from a polytheistic mythology.

We are not discussing fictional people of the game world and we are not discussing the players playing the game. We are discussing the word utilised in the rulebook which states 'a' god or goddess not 'the' god or goddess.
And again the concept of a god (presumably referring to male in that context) and goddess (female) originate from mythology which again is another polytheistic indicator.

You seem to be dismissing/ignoring all polytheistic indicators within the game (literature, settings, monsters, the actual rulebook) to refute that polytheism was implied even within early D&D with the core of your argument relying on LotR philosophy and your own table's campaign world.

Again, and I can't believe I need to repeat this, nobody is saying anything about D&D actually being monotheistic, nor denying that most D&D campaigns have been polytheistic. The discussions about the cleric and the paladin and Tolkien just help illustrate how trivial it would be to run D&D in a monotheistic campaign. That's literally all it is.

 

[Sadras]

Again, and I can't believe I need to repeat this, nobody is saying anything about D&D actually being monotheistiC

I believe you have misunderstood me.
I agree with you no one is saying D&D is actually monotheistic.
But @pemerton is denying polytheism is impled in D&D. THAT is what I'm disagreeing with!

The discussions about the cleric and the paladin and Tolkien just help illustrate how trivial it would be to run D&D in a monotheistic campaign. That's literally all it is.

Again, I agree with you, it would be trivial to run a monotheistic campaign.

But please follow the quotes from @Hussar and Pemerton below where Pemerton keeps denying polytheism indicators. It is only by post #1261 where Pemetron speaks about it being trivial to create a monotheistic campaign world. Hussar was not questioning that - Pemerton changed the conversation. Hussar's initial and end stance was that polytheism in D&D is implied. Hussar never said monotheism couldn't be done. Not once, yet you and Pemerton took him on a joyride only to end with something he wasn't even arguing in the first instance!

Hussar's wanted to know why 5e has been singled out because polytheism was been implied in every edition. That is it. You agree with him or don't you?

The part that baffles me is why is 5e being called out for this? I mean, D&D has always been polytheistic since day 1. Not a single edition of the game presumes a monotheistic setting.

Being dedicated to the service of a god or goddess permits polytheism. But it doesn't imply it.

True, but, being in service to "a" god, certainly implies polytheism. If you have "a" god, and not "the" god, you can very easily have multiple gods. And the fact that you can be in service to "a god or goddess" strongly implies that both exist simultaneously and that you choose one or the other to be in service to.

In any case, that line is hardly the only piece of evidence. The fact that EVERY SINGLE D&D setting has been polytheistic since day 1 (was Blackmoor polytheistic - there was a later City of the Gods module, so, I guess so). Arguing that D&D has ever supported a monotheistic set up is ignoring virtually every single publication for the past forty or so years.

But that is the word used in the book. It's not necessarily the word used by the people of the gameworld.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to be dismissing/ignoring all polytheistic indicators within the game (literature, settings, monsters, the actual rulebook) to refute that polytheism was implied even within early D&D with the core of your argument relying on LotR philosophy and your own table's campaign world.

No. I'm saying that, prior to 2nd ed AD&D's specialty priests, the core tools the game gives me to run divine PCs (clerics and paladins) aren't a very good fit for the classic polytheistic pantheons (Greek, Norse, Babylonian/Sumerian, etc) and fictional variations thereon.

pemerton is denying polytheism is impled in D&D. THAT is what I'm disagreeing with!

I don't know how you intend "implied". I took [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to mean something like "entailed" - certainly stronger than "suggested". And the evidence he points to is good evidence - Appendix IV of the AD&D PHB.

But that evidence:

(i) doesn't exist in other sources (eg Moldvay Basic - the reference to "a god" is as consistent with a god chosen by the GM to be the god of the campaign world as it is with a god chosen by the player from among the many of the campaign world);

(ii) faces the problem that there are few or no tools for actually implementing it in play - the cleric class is simply not a good fit for a priest of Artemis, or Dionysus, or Baldur, or Ishtar, or . . . - let alone for a devotee of the Happy Hunting Grounds.​

The introduction of specialty priests into 2nd ed AD&D, and their perpetuation (in various more-or-less limited ways) into 3E and 5e are a real change to the game, that make the implementation of polytheism in a campaign world much more practical.

what does how you ran your gameworld have to do with polytheism within the history of D&D.

It means that either (i) I missed the implication that is to be found in Moldvay Basic, or (ii) it is not there. My contention is that it is not there.

 

[Sadras]

Being dedicated to the service of a god or goddess permits polytheism. But it doesn't imply it.

You could have two clerics in one party, serving a god the other serving a goddess.
And again providing the option of god or goddess is an indicator towards polytheism given influence of mythology otherwise the rulebook would just say god or deity.

I don't know how you intend "implied". I took @Hussar to mean something like "entailed" - certainly stronger than "suggested".

Hussar explained himself over many posts and you are smart enough to understand what Hussar meant when he used the word implied. Should you want to backdoor through some vagary understanding of that word, have at it. I'm certainly not going to follow you down that rabbit hole.

And the evidence he points to is good evidence - Appendix IV of the AD&D PHB.

But that evidence: (i) doesn't exist in other sources (eg Moldvay Basic - the reference to "a god" is as consistent with a god chosen by the GM to be the god of the campaign world as it is with a god chosen by the player from among the many of the campaign world);

Yes, but when Moldvay Basic refers to the adventure B1 In Search of the Unknown and in that adventure on page 16 it reflects location 28. WORSHIP AREA. The stronghold's worship area is no more than a token gesture to the gods, it would seem. is that also not a good enough indicator for you (along with everything else) that polytheism is implied in D&D?

(ii) faces the problem that there are few or no tools for actually implementing it in play - the cleric class is simply not a good fit for a priest of Artemis, or Dionysus, or Baldur, or Ishtar, or . . . - let alone for a devotee of the Happy Hunting Grounds.

'Few tools' or 'good enough fit' has got nothing to do with what is implied or not.

The introduction of specialty priests into 2nd ed AD&D, and their perpetuation (in various more-or-less limited ways) into 3E and 5e are a real change to the game, that make the implementation of polytheism in a campaign world much more practical.

No one is debating practicality of implentation except you.

It means that either (i) I missed the implication that is to be found in Moldvay Basic, or (ii) it is not there. My contention is that it is not there.

When the evil priest in B2 Keep on the Borderlands (another adventure referred to in Moldvay Basic) is a cleric, and by the rulebook definition the cleric class is someone who serves a god or goddess, my contention is (i) That you missed the implication.

 

[Lanefan]

No. I'm saying that, prior to 2nd ed AD&D's specialty priests, the core tools the game gives me to run divine PCs (clerics and paladins) aren't a very good fit for the classic polytheistic pantheons (Greek, Norse, Babylonian/Sumerian, etc) and fictional variations thereon.

Hmmm...we've managed to make it work OK for well over 35 years...just sayin'...

 

[Maxperson]

It means that either (i) I missed the implication that is to be found in Moldvay Basic, or (ii) it is not there. My contention is that it is not there.

This is from page 51 of Moldvay Basic:

6. Fulfilling a Quest: This is a scenario in which a king (or other NPC) provides a reason for adventuring. A variation of this is a special mission for "the gods". Quite often this scenario also involves the recovery of a sacred object or powerful magic item.